I have the great good fortune to raise for debate tonight the subject of Oldchurch hospital in my constituency. At a meeting of the Barking, Havering and Brentwood health authority tomorrow, a decision will be taken that could be critical for the hospital's future. The authority has proposed that, in the longer term, our district should be served by one general hospital on a single site at Harold Wood in the neighbouring constituency of Upminster. To his credit, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who unfortunately cannot be here tonight, is as opposed to the proposal as am I and my other Havering colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) who, within the short time allowed, and subject to catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, will contribute later.

The hon. Members for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) are also very much opposed to the proposal, because large numbers of their constituents look to Oldchurch hospital for their medical treatment. Of the six hon. Members who represent the district, only my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) is other than categorical in his condemnation of the proposal. The majority of his constituents live closer to Harold Wood than to Oldchurch hospital.

It could be said that the proposal has few friends. During the consultation period, which expired at the end of January, the community health council, the London boroughs of Havering and of Barking and Dagenham, trade unions, doctors, patients, other organisations and members of the public have been loud in their disapproval.

The purpose of tonight's short debate is twofold: first, to bring home to the Minister, whose presence at this late hour is much appreciated, the strong feelings of people in the district on the proposal; secondly, to take a last opportunity, at the eleventh hour, to ensure that the health authority's decision tomorrow reflects the widespread opposition to the proposal. It would make a mockery of consultation were such a universal thumbs-down to be disregarded.

The reasons for the hostility of the public to the proposal are relatively straightforward. The Barking, Havering and Brentwood district is one of the largest in the country; from memory, I believe that it is the largest in London. It serves a population of 453,000 people. The Barking and Dagenham end of that district has an above average incidence of illness and a degree of social deprivation. In general terms, the population there has a high morbidity and a low mobility.

The combination of those two factors makes the prospect of people there having to go another four or five miles for hospital treatment unacceptable to them arid to many others. Such a distance may seem insignificant to people who live in country areas, but in highly populated urban areas it surely makes sense to provide services that are as close as possible to the people. That certainly holds true when the densest population coincides with the greatest need.

In seeking the retention of Oldchurch hospital, I am not speaking only for my constituents. However, I strongly believe that services should be local. Excellence is not the only criterion; convenience and accessibility are also important, and the right balance must be struck. Contrived formulas and artificial weightings have been devised to lead to the conclusion that there should be only one general hospital on a single site in our district. That is being challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and me.

The North East Thames regional health authority intends by strategic decision to approve a new district general hospital just across the western boundary in the neighbouring district of Goodmayes. That seems to pre-empt the opinion of people in our area about the provision of local hospital services. That opinion can broadly be summed up by saying that they would like to retain Harold Wood and Oldchurch hospital.

Oldchurch hospital is a Victorian workhouse-type hospital, but it provides a wide range of services, including regional specialties, to my constituents and to many other people in the area. It has attracted dedicated, high-calibre specialists who have been able to benefit from the interdisciplinary contacts that are established at Oldchurch. Despite being under constant threat from two quarters, they have engaged in many innovative and imaginative ventures. It is surprising that the success and popularity of the hospital should be so consistently challenged.

The first threat is from the London teaching hospitals, which resent the pretensions of Oldchurch hospital and would like to have its patients to boost their depopulated clinics. The second threat is from regional administrators, who cannot accept what they see as inadequate buildings and a cramped location but would prefer a brand new extension development to modern standards on a green field site. However, that would be at the expense of convenience and accessibility. In spite of those threats, Oldchurch hospital has prospered.

As it is just past midnight, I can announce that it is 17 years ago today that I entered the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is ironic that much of my time here has been spent in fighting threats to this much-loved institution in my constituency. There have been two proposals to close the neurosurgical unit, and two proposals to close the radiotherapy unit. On each occasion, a campaign was mounted to save the units. Now it is proposed that the whole hospital be closed, and that is a matter for regret.

I have received very few complaints about the treatment of patients at Oldchurch or about the standards of medical treatment or nursing. On the contrary, the vast majority of the complaints that I receive concern the fact that people cannot get an appointment or treatment soon enough. One imagines that that situation would not be improved by the closure of the hospital. Our case is that the hospital should certainly be allowed to continue its present service to the people of the area.

It is astonishing that, despite all the threats, the hospital's spirit is undiminished, and its confidence in its own future unflagging. Oldchurch has expressed an interest in achieving the status of a self-governing trust, and the Secretary of State has given approval for the further preparation of its plans. We must hope that the future will lie in that direction. In the meantime, we face the proposal that the hospital be closed, and the services provided on a single site elsewhere. As I have explained, that is not acceptable, either to the majority of Members of this House or to the majority of people in my area.

Our hope must be that the authority that runs hospital services in the area will take account of those views before making any decision. What the people in my constituency want is treatment of a good standard—not necessarily the very best—provided within a reasonable distance of their homes. Oldchurch hospital has provided such treatment in the past, and continues to do so, and any proposal that it should not be allowed to do so in the future will be vigorously and rightly resisted.